On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:33:39 -0600 (MDT), Denis Lamoureux wrote to
Jim Bell:
JB>Why do Darwinists label ANY critic of Darwinism an ipso facto
>"creationist"? Because this loaded, emotion-laden term limits the
>credibility of the opponent. We can see this in the reactions to
>Mike Behe's book. Even though Behe says over and over he is NOT a
>creationist, that's what his critics call him.
DL>Inversely, "Why do CREATIONISTS label ANY critic of CREATIONISM an
>ipso facto "DARWINIST"? Because this loaded, emotion-laden term
>limits the credibility of the opponent."
Actually I don't mind being called a "creationist" and in fact I
often use that of myself. However, I make it quite clear that I am a
progressive "creationist", as opposed to a young-Earth "creationist".
But I am always puzzled why some evolutionists who profess to believe
in one of the modern variants of the Darwinian theory of evolution,
dislike being called Darwinists. The fact of the matter is that
leading evolutionists like Gould and Dawkins quite openly call
themselves Darwinists or Darwinians:
"Together with only a handful of others, including W. D. Hamilton and
G. C. Williams, Maynard Smith is one of today's leading Darwinians."
(Dawkins R., "Foreword to the Canto Edition", in Smith J.M., "The
Theory of Evolution", Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK,
Canto Edition, 1993, p.xiv)
"I, although I wear the Darwinian label with some pride, am not among
the most ardent defenders of natural selection." (Gould S.J., "Ever
Since Darwin", Penguin: London, 1977, p39);. "As a Darwinian, I
wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not
simply microevolution extrapolated..." (Gould S.J., "The Return of
the Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London, 1980,
p157).
Gould reviewed Johnson's Darwin on Trial, which throughout refers to
"Darwinists" and "Darwinism", and although Gould complained about a
lot of things, nowhere did he complain about those terms.
DL>Jim, I know you are going to launch out your standard "priestly
>robes" argument at me for making the following statement: But I
>work in a large university in the area of evolutionary biology--and
>I have never once heard my colleagues refer to themselves as
>"DARWINISTS."
Hardly surprising - I have been a Christian attending
conservative/fundamentalist churches almost continuously for nearly
30 years and I cannot recall ever hearing any of my fellow Christians
use the term "creationist" of themselves, even though they almost all
are creationists of some form.
DL>Most know little about Charles Darwin and most could
>care less.
This is hardly relevant. To believe in the modern Neo-Darwinian
theory of evolution does not require one to know anything about
"Charles Darwin".
DL>For that matter, I can't think of ever seeing the term
>in the modern evolutionary scientific professional literature.
If Denis is referring to the *technical* "evolutionary scientific
professional literature" then again it is not suprising that
the term "Darwinist" is rarely used. Why would it be?
DL>Second, Mike Behe is definitely a creationist, in its ontological
>sense, because he is a devout Roman Catholic.
So what? Behe is a *Christian*, so in that sense he is a
"creationist" because he believes in a Creator. But then in the
same broad sense, so is Dennis a "creationist".
DL>He is clearly an antievolutionist because that has been his public
>position ever since I met him in Cambridge in 1994.
To define Behe as "antievolutionist" is to miss the nuances of his
position. This is a good example why it is better to use the more
specific term "Darwinist" rather than the more vague "Evolution". It
might be more correct to call Behe an anti-*Darwinist*, since he
believes in common ancestry and the Darwinian evolutionary mechanism
of variation and step-by-step natural selection at the microevolutionary
level. However, he does not believe that the above Darwinian evolutionary
mechanism explains change at the very large (macroevolutionary) and the
very small (molecular biological) levels:
"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few
basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that
questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing
creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in
an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation
of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason
to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists
say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all
organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no
particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my
colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms
within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary
biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the
world. Although Darwin's mechanism-natural selection working on
variation-might explain many things, however, I do not believe it
explains molecular life." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996,
p5)
and
"On a small scale, Darwin's theory has triumphed; it is now about as
controversial as an athlete's assertion that he or she could jump over a
four-foot ditch. But it is at the level of macroevolution-of large
jumps-that the theory evokes skepticism. Many people have followed
Darwin in proposing that huge changes can be broken down to
plausible, small steps over great periods of time. Persuasive evidence
to support that position, however, has not been forthcoming.
Nonetheless, like a neighbor's story about vanishing buttes, it has
been difficult to evaluate whether the elusive and ill-defined small
steps could exist...until now." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996,
p15)
DL>Thus, Behe, like most of the Intelligent Design group is some form
>of Progressive Creationist (and like this group, he refuses to
>define and offer details of his position).
Perhaps Dennis should read Mike Behe's book? Behe defines his
position quite well, in three specific chapters entitled:
Chapter 9, "Intelligent Design"
Chapter 10, "Questions About Design"
Chapter 11, "Science, Philosophy, Religion"
Apparently leading origins of life theorist Robert Shapiro, Professor
of Chemistry at New York University thought so too (despite being
criticised by Behe in the book*), since he wrote:
"Michael Behe has done a top notch job of explaining and
illuminating one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin
of complexity that permeates all of life on this planet. Professor
Behe selects an answer that falls outside of science: the original
creation of life by an intelligent designer. Many scientists, myself
included, will prefer to continue the search for an answer within
science. Nonetheless, this book should be on the essential reading
list of all those who are interested in the question of where we came
from, as IT PRESENTS THE MOST THOROUGH AND CLEVER PRESENTATION OF
THE DESIGN ARGUMENT THAT I HAVE SEEN."
- Robert Shapiro, Author of Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the
Creation of Life on Earth
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996, back cover. My emphasis.)
* ironically, Behe's criticism of Shapiro is that he is
chauvinistically loyal to science, rather than to the goal of
explaining the physical world. Shapiro's complimentary comments about
Behe's book show that he is generous but unrepentant!
[...]
Behe's book has a final review on the rear cover by Peter Van
Inwagen, Professor of Philosophy, Notre Dame University:
"This book will do much to correct the common misapprehension that
anyone who questions the Darwinian theory of evolution must be a
"young earth creationist" whose motivation is to preserve the literal
truth of of the stories told in the first three books (sic?) of
Genesis against against the encroachments of modern science and
reason. If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it,
misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favour
of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an
ideology than as a scientific theory. If they can successfully
answer Behe's arguments, that will be important evidence in favor of
Darwinism." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996, back cover)
Maybe Denis would like to take up Prof. Inwagen's challenge and
"successfully answer Behe's arguments"? Unfortunately, from Denis'
track record on this Reflector, I rather suspect that his reply will
be either: "ignoring it, misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it"! :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------